Let Them Eat Che

Much has been written about Hollywood’s obsession with Communist poster child and fashion icon Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Despite the protestations of those who actually knew and were tortured or persecuted by Che, the stories of hundreds of thousands of Cuban exiles and a vast body of easily accessible knowledge on the failed state he helped create, the bad boy “Butcher of la Cabaña” still holds an unholy fascination with the historically-challenged. Though Che was opposed to free elections, freedom of religion, free speech, free press, freedom of assembly, and even freewheeling rock and roll, he has morphed into the ultimate freedom fighter célèbre. Is the phenomenon of the world’s wealthiest and most privileged paying homage to a destroyer of wealth and privilege unique? In a word: no.

In school, we’re told we learn history in order to prevent ourselves from repeating the mistakes of the past. If only that were true. For those who study history and pay attention to its warning signs, this is a particularly painful period in the annals of western civilization on many fronts; a virtual smorgasbord of willful ignorance and denial.

The warning signs are everywhere and have been reported in this blog and in major publications the world over. But, to Homo sibi destruens, such signs are, once again, patently ignored. Students of history’s flashing red warning lights debate: “Are we repeating all the worst follies of 1929, 1933, 1936 or a combination thereof?” While we’re at it, I’d like to throw another date into the ring: 1782.

That was the year a new play by Pierre Beaumarchais really began to make ripples in pre-revolutionary France. “Le Mariage de Figaro” was a clever comedy about the continuing exploits of The Barber of Seville’s main character, Figaro. The inspiration for Mozart’s opera was, in fact, considered revolutionary, because its main character openly criticized the nobility.

At a climactic moment in the play, Figaro laments:

What! Because you are a great man, you fancy yourself a great genius…. While the obscurity in which I have been cast demanded more abilities to gain a mere subsistence than are requisite to govern empires. And what, most noble Count, are your claims to distinction, to pompous titles, and immense wealth, of which you are so proud, and which, by accident, you possess? For which of your virtues? Your wisdom? Your generosity? Your justice?–The wisdom you have acquired consists in vile arts, to gratify vile passions; your generosity is lavished on your hireling instruments…and your justice is the inveterate persecution of those who have the will and the wit to resist your depredations…But this has ever been the practice of the little great; those they cannot degrade, they endeavor to crush.

– Courtesy of The Online Library of Liberty

Pretty heady stuff for the 18th Century. No wonder it was banned. One would imagine that France’s nobility would shun a play that so blatantly attacked and ridiculed them. Au contraire, mon ami! Instead of identifying with the character of Count Almaviva, the nobleman Figaro was railing against, the French aristocracy, in a fit of cognitive disconnect worthy of a Hollywood liberal, identified with Figaro, the Count’s lowly servant. Soon, Beaumarchais’ bon mots became all the rage among the very people they scorned and sought to undermine. Despite King Lous XVI’s ban, Figaro quickly topped the must-read list of the French elite. All those who desired a reputation as a wit, daring lover of the risqué and trend-setting raconteur simply had to have it read in their parlors by the author himself.

The so-called “smart set” went mad for Beaumarchais’ little golden piece of “Parisiana,” and the mocking relish with which the writer recited it to their faces. The fact that it decried everything they stood for was of little consequence. By being in on the joke, by nodding and winking along with Beaumarchais, weren’t they proving that the author was, in fact, not talking about them? He was speaking of other obscenely wealthy, privileged members of the nobility.

As the French royalty’s disconnect with reality grew, so concurrently did Figaro’s cult status. By June of 1783, the demand for a production of the play half the nobility already knew by heart was so overwhelming, a performance was ordered for the Court. However, King Louis lost his nerve at the last moment and had it cancelled. The French courtiers, unable to endure any deprivation when it came to their enjoyment, reacted by mounting their own private production that was “secretly” played before over two hundred of high society’s crème de la crème. They laughed and cheered and applauded the play whose very words – when finally performed for the public in 1784 – would, according to biographer Hilaire Belloc, “act like an acid, to the destruction of all their world.”

As we know, the French Revolution did not deliver on its promise of replacing a repressive society with “liberté, égalité, fraternité” as originally intended. Instead, the vacuum of power it created escalated into the Reign of Terror, during which many of the very people who supported Figaro were murdered, and ultimately culminated in the rise of a dictator. This historic pattern was also repeated during the Cuban Revolution.

Today, free societies have unprecedented access to information. Unlike the French nobility who could not even conceive of the terrible results a revolution would yield, we do know how Che Guevara’s brainchild played out in our world. The Internet is filled with first-hand accounts of Cuban repression and brutality. Most poignant, perhaps, for any artist enjoying the free exercise of their art in a country of unparalleled freedom, are the accounts of writers, poets, artists, and musicians who have been persecuted and imprisoned for the crime of merely expressing themselves.

The fact that any self-respecting artist would champion an oppressor of artists is disturbing to say the least. In a breathtaking act of obstinate unawareness, America’s Che-lovers have recklessly endorsed a system of government, which – were it ever allowed to flourish on these shores – would necessarily result in their own destruction.

If you don’t believe me, just ask “Joe.” I met Joe at a Hollywood party a few years ago, sitting silently, shaking his head amongst all the animated political discussions loudly commandeered by those whose primary sources consisted of MSNBC’s talking points or the latest Wahhabi mouthpiece planted here by our enemies.

Born in Cuba, Joe’s successful parents were big supporters of the Cuban Revolution. Unfortunately, after Castro ousted Batista, he neglected to establish a democracy. As Castro seized control of the country, he also decided to seize control of Joe’s family home along with all their assets. After being tipped off by a friend that there was a price on their heads, Joe’s parents fled with him to America.

One wonders if it will take something equally catastrophic to awaken America’s elite Che-worshippers to the bitter fruits borne of their political preferences. Safely ensconced in wealth and luxury on par with the pre-revolutionary French nobility, the red flags of history sadly pass them by. Instead, they choose to remain blissfully unaware of how easily the bubbles of privilege can be burst.